Murder in most civilized countries is defined as “the unlawful killing of another human being, especially if committed with malice aforethought." In 31 states, a conviction of first-degree murder can mean a sentence of death. In the remaining 19 states, the death sentence is illegal, leaving the options of life in prison without possibility of parole, or a sentence which may offer an eventual release back into society. Interestingly, the homicide rate is higher in states in which execution is legal, than in states banning execution.

I thought about these vagaries as I followed the case of the Pinyon Pines murders and co-defendants Robert Pape and Cristin Smith. Pape was found guilty of second-degree murder in the slaying of Rebecca "Becky" Friedli, 18. Pape and Smith were both found guilty of first-degree murder in the slayings of Becky Friedli's mother and her boyfriend. While the death penalty is legal in California, Pape and Smith were both sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

Knowing how the jurisprudence system works in our country, there may be a series of appeals coming for one or both convicted parties. But appeals or not, this case rekindled thoughts I have had about convicted murderers going back to my days with ABC News and the Manson murders.

I was a young staff director for ABC News in Los Angeles at the time and had never remotely experienced anything like the Manson atrocities. But when the verdicts came in and the sentences were handed out, which were all basically life sentences behind bars, (in some cases with the possibility of parole), I remember thinking: is that punishment enough for taking a life? Multiple lives?!

In the course of that thought process, an off-the-wall thought came to me — a thought I’ve never shared with anyone ... until now. And let me say very clearly, I am not a proponent of an eye for an eye. If death sentences stopped murders, murder would have become obsolete many, many years ago.

That said, here is my unsolicited two cents in the matter. I maintain that no punishment will ever fit the crime of taking another innocent person’s life. But I do think there is a fitting sentence that in my humble opinion, is better than anything currently on the books. And it does not involve an eye for an eye.

If someone is convicted of murder, or even manslaughter, I propose they be sentenced to time behind bars, for whatever length of time the current law dictates, with one additional element. In whatever prison cell they are to spend their sentence, every wall of that cell should feature life-sized images of the person or persons whose lives they took. In that way, every single day and night of their life behind bars they would be forced to confront the reality of their callous action.

For some hardened criminals without conscience or remorse, this may have absolutely no negative effect. But for whatever percentage of the murdering population might still have a semblance of conscience, having to face their victims, day after day, night after night, would, I think, be infinitely more punishing than mere incarceration with three meals a day and free medical coverage.

Of course, eliminating murder all together would be the ultimate cure. But that’s another story entirely.

Frank V. Furino(Photo11: Courtesy photo)

Frank V. Furino is a former TV writer/producer, current board member of SafeHouse of the Desert, and faculty member of the local Osher Lifelong Learning Institute. Email him at frank.furino@gmail.com.